Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH v2] ref-filter.c: pass empty-string as NULL to atom parsers




Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> The above does a nice job of explaining
>
>  - what this change is going to do
>  - how it's good for the internal code structure / maintainability
>
> What it doesn't tell me about is why the user-facing effect won't
> cause problems.  Is there no atom where %(atom:) was previously
> accepted and did something meaningful that this may break?

That is, was there any situation where %(atom) and %(atom:) did two
differnt things and their differences made sense?

> Looking at the manpage and code, I don't see any, so for what it's
> worth, this is
>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> but for next time, please remember to discuss regression risk in
> the commit message, too.

Yes, I agree that it is necessary to make sure somebody looked at
the issue _and_ record the fact that it happened.  Thanks for doing
that already ;-)

I also took a look at the code and currently we seem to abort,
either with "unrecognised arg" (e.g. "refname:") or "does not take
args" (e.g. "body"), so we should be OK, I'd think.